Earl Aelfheah

So do you not think it is not possible, or that it is even difficult, to make that turn without entering the bus lane?

No I don't. The side road is not at a right angle to the main road. It is very easy to make that turn and there is absolutely zero reason to cross into the bus lane. I haven't done that have I. No one has claimed that Southwark are issuing fines for driving close to a white line, but rather for crossing the white line (another way of saying, driving in in the bus lane). My guess is that people are being fined for moving into the lane before turning. Likely to squeeze pass cars on the left, make the turn sooner and save time.

Always the case that if you enter a bus lane you are liable for a fine. this is not specific to this bus lane. My understanding is that there are no definitive rules for the termination of a bus lane in advance of a left turn into a side street. Each site is considered on an individual basis dependent on the site-specific circumstances. But more importantly, Tfl guidance only applies to tfl managed roads. The relevant question is why you think it is not possible to turn comfortably into the side road without entering the bus lane? You think that TFL don't issue fines for similar 'infractions'? You think people can't see the bus lane? You think this is the key point? Does Tfl ignore people crossing into a bus lane if they only do it a little bit? I think this thread is likely just about Rockets getting a fine entirely avoidably and not taking it on the chin.

How? I have not agreed that at all. It is always that case that if you enter a bus lane you will get fined.

You're quite right! I thought you were talking about a different junction. Looking at the Overhill one, the bus lane does run much closer to the junction, although the turn is also easier / at less of an acute angle Still very difficult to see how one would need to, or could accidentally enter the bus lane when turning left. Not sure the photo above is Again, it sucks to get a fine, but not difficult to avoid.

The rules on bus lanes are very clear. If you don't drive in a bus lane, you won't get a fine. Really? Not what the data shows. If you are concerned with bus speeds on Lordship Lane, then suggest you lobby for extension of the bus lane operating hours. Notable that we currently have Rockets calling for people to drive in bus lanes without getting fined also.

The rules are that you don't drive in a bus lane. There is a sign stating that it's in operation at all times and that there are enforcement cameras. It is not difficult to turn left without entering the bus lane, there is plenty of room to turn. Unless you're trying to squeeze pass cars on the left to save time, there is not really any reason to enter the bus lane. It sucks to get a fine, but not difficult to avoid. ...also, are these cameras new? I believe there has always been enforcement cameras on this spot.

Yes, thoroughly dishonest ones. As anyone can see.

No. This is what happened. It followed a familiar pattern. You said some things that are demonstrably untrue: and… You then show yourself to be wrong, but bizarrely claim vindication 🤦‍♂️ So to summarise: You made a false claim (that Southwark's 'own guidance' is that LTNs should only be implemented in the North of the Borough) You then repeated it several more times, despite my politely suggesting that I did not think it was right You then quoted and posted links to documents that directly contradicted what you said, thereby proving your own mistake. When confronted with this, instead of just saying- oh yeh, perhaps I was mistaken, you doubled down. It's dishonest and embarrassing.

This is a thread about the CPZ

I’ve read the document. It does not say that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores or cite the north of the borough as an example, as you have repeatedly claimed: The document you have linked to explicitly calls for a borough wide programme of LTNs, which is exactly the policy they have pursued. Dulwich is not the only LTN in Southwark, but one of many created across the borough. And again, this thread is about the CPZ, not the LTN.

You have again linked to a document from Southwark that calls for a “borough wide programme of low traffic neighbourhoods”.

This 👆🏾 is not true, and this 👇… Also posted by you and quoting council guidance, proves it; completely contradicting the previous post. It’s embarrassing that rather than simply correct a mistake, you double down and deflect. It’s a repeated pattern of deliberately spreading misinformation. It’s a shame admin continues to allow you to do this in pursuit of your monomaniacal obsession with an LTN introduced 4 years ago now.

Embarrassing

Where do the council say that either LTNs or CPZs should only be implemented in areas with a high PTAL, or only in the north of the borough? That’s a ‘clever’ response, when challenged on something you’ve repeatedly claimed that is demonstrably false. Well done.

I don't understand what your point is. You keep claiming that the council recommends LTNs only be implemented in areas with a high PTAL / and only in the north of the borough, but then quote them saying the opposite; that they recommend a borough wide programme of LTNs.

You’ve literally quoted them recommending a borough wide programme of LTNs

A location will have a higher PTAL if it is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops. If you live in an area with lots of playing fields and parks and where there are lots of big detached houses with big gardens spread out across fewer streets, then stops will tend to be further away for many of the residents in that area. What is more, an area that is more dependent on car, bus, bicycle or foot to get about, needs action to cut down on congestion just as much, if not more than areas where public transport is easy to access. Lastly, Southwark do no have guidance saying that LTNs or other active travel measure should only happen in the north of the borough, or in areas with a high PTAL as repeatedly claimed. So can we please stop spreading this misinformation? The council have been very clear about their desire to make the borough safer, and greener; to reduce traffic, congestion and pollution, and encourage active travel. They were elected on that basis. They probably believe that controlled parking is part of a strategy to achieve those things. Plus, there are problems with dangerous and inconsiderate parking around the school at particular times, which again, they probably believe this will help address. Not everything is a conspiracy.

A lolly pop lady doesn’t have anything to do with parking. It wasn’t in Southwark’s guidance. See the chat above. Southwark’s guidance recommends borough wide LTNs. And again, this thread is about CPZs

Are you saying you’re against potential improvements to the public realm and the environment from a potential surplus? I don’t get the point.

Fair enough. If you think there is no issue with congestion or parking, then maybe a CPZ isn’t needed. Again, not sure what that has to do with either the square / LTN (this thread is about CPZ), or PTAL.

You could massively increase the frequency of buses running through the village. Many people would still have the same long walk to the bus stop. the fact is that the lack of density in terms of housing, the many, wide open spaces, are a significant factor in the Vilage’s relatively low PTAL I also do not understand how a relatively low PTAL somehow makes the argument against a CPZ? What’s the link in your mind?

@first mate, why don’t you have a look at the Southwark budget docs (all published) and ask your councillor to answer any questions you have. We have already discussed PTAL. It’s clear there is a misunderstanding of its relevance to this debate. The quickest way to increase PTALs in Dulwich Village would be to build a load of high density housing / flats near the main road, or to have buses cutting through the park. The reality is that the character and topography of the village explains its score. But more fundamentally, a lower PTAL does not suggest it’s a good idea to encourage more cars from outside the area, and more congestion, or make it more difficult for residents to park, or visit the shops.

exdulwicher is right about the funding of projects like the Dulwich LTN not being directly funded or linked to CPZs. It was funded by the UK government's Emergency Active Travel Fund initially. Guy’s and St Thomas’ charity also funded some low-traffic neighbourhoods elsewhere in the borough, to tackle air pollution and obesity. I know you are not in favour of the changes made to road layouts 4 years ago, but this thread isn't about that. The CPZ, is about tackling concerns (repeatedly raised by residents) about inconsiderate and unsafe parking-related issues, linked to local schools, amongst other things. btw, if you're really interested in the councils budget, there is information here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-tax/how-we-manage-council-tax/our-budget-and-how-we-spend-council-tax

The greyhound in Peckham another possibility?